dondubble
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2023 16:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 213
|
Post by dondubble on May 3, 2024 17:09:29 GMT -5
Amen scgal. As the only other conservative on this board my sentiments exactly. what the actual hell, guys. you would celebrate a guy circumventing the constitution and the rule of law? it is not CONSERVATIVE to wish for the destruction of our democratic institutions. it is something else. you can't be serious. you HAVE to be trolling. or not reading. which is it? you guys, and probably 30M other Americans, are really scaring me. They have gone beyond ‘conservative’ into the fascist realm. A great book that reveals the creeping fascism culminating in something incredibly evil is: In The Garden Of Beasts by Erik Larson. About William Dodd, US Ambassador to Germany 1933-1937. Scary how the ‘good Germans’ watched as Nazi power and all that entailed spread like cancer.
|
|
pulmonarymd
Junior Associate
Joined: Feb 12, 2020 17:40:54 GMT -5
Posts: 7,416
|
Post by pulmonarymd on May 3, 2024 19:33:25 GMT -5
The only amendment that matters is the second. Screw the others
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on May 3, 2024 20:59:18 GMT -5
what the actual hell, guys. you would celebrate a guy circumventing the constitution and the rule of law? it is not CONSERVATIVE to wish for the destruction of our democratic institutions. it is something else. you can't be serious. you HAVE to be trolling. or not reading. which is it? you guys, and probably 30M other Americans, are really scaring me. They have gone beyond ‘conservative’ into the fascist realm. A great book that reveals the creeping fascism culminating in something incredibly evil is: In The Garden Of Beasts by Erik Larson. About William Dodd, US Ambassador to Germany 1933-1937. Scary how the ‘good Germans’ watched as Nazi power and all that entailed spread like cancer. One of my favorite authors. He’s just come out with a new one, the Demon of Unrest, about Fort Sumpter at the start of the Civil War. Got it on Kindle but haven’t started it yet.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,458
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on May 3, 2024 21:10:01 GMT -5
I remember the stories my Mom would tell me of how Hitler rose to power in Germany, while the rest of the world was shaking their heads in disbelief. I've got an eerie feeling the rest of the world is doing the same since Trump seems to still have a large fan base in the US. I suspect the rest of the world cannot believe that he's actually running for president. Again.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,332
|
Post by scgal on May 4, 2024 7:00:02 GMT -5
Amen scgal. As the only other conservative on this board my sentiments exactly. what the actual hell, guys. you would celebrate a guy circumventing the constitution and the rule of law? it is not CONSERVATIVE to wish for the destruction of our democratic institutions. it is something else. you can't be serious. you HAVE to be trolling. or not reading. which is it? you guys, and probably 30M other Americans, are really scaring me. The rub is he did not circumvent the constitution or the rule of law. I'm sure after these last 4 years there is going to be millions more. I don't want Trump there because I don't think he can get enough of it done but that is what we need a true nationalist president. One that will start to reshape this country the way it was intended to be. USA number 1. No exceptions
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on May 4, 2024 9:57:51 GMT -5
what the actual hell, guys. you would celebrate a guy circumventing the constitution and the rule of law? it is not CONSERVATIVE to wish for the destruction of our democratic institutions. it is something else. you can't be serious. you HAVE to be trolling. or not reading. which is it? you guys, and probably 30M other Americans, are really scaring me. The rub is he did not circumvent the constitution or the rule of law. I'm sure after these last 4 years there is going to be millions more. I don't want Trump there because I don't think he can get enough of it done but that is what we need a true nationalist president. One that will start to reshape this country the way it was intended to be. USA number 1. No exceptions Thinking about how that plays out reminds me how I have been dealing with a young high school student who is struggling with idea he can't be number 1, no exceptions, in the lunch line no matter how many others are already in line. Or on the world stage:
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 4, 2024 10:28:04 GMT -5
No overblown ego in that video!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on May 4, 2024 11:00:06 GMT -5
No overblown ego in that video! I think it is important to see it not just as a personal issue but as symbolic of the USA number one, no exception attitude.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 4, 2024 11:03:52 GMT -5
what the actual hell, guys. you would celebrate a guy circumventing the constitution and the rule of law? it is not CONSERVATIVE to wish for the destruction of our democratic institutions. it is something else. you can't be serious. you HAVE to be trolling. or not reading. which is it? you guys, and probably 30M other Americans, are really scaring me. The rub is he did not circumvent the constitution or the rule of law. I'm sure after these last 4 years there is going to be millions more. I don't want Trump there because I don't think he can get enough of it done but that is what we need a true nationalist president. One that will start to reshape this country the way it was intended to be. USA number 1. No exceptions Out of curiosity, what things will have to happen to reshape the country the way it was "intended to be"? What needs to be implemented and what needs to be ended.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on May 4, 2024 11:06:24 GMT -5
The rub is he did not circumvent the constitution or the rule of law. I'm sure after these last 4 years there is going to be millions more. I don't want Trump there because I don't think he can get enough of it done but that is what we need a true nationalist president. One that will start to reshape this country the way it was intended to be. USA number 1. No exceptions Out of curiosity, what things will have to happen to reshape the country the way it was "intended to be"? What needs to be implemented and what needs to be ended. I was wondering if it included returning the vote to only white male property owners.
|
|
dondubble
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2023 16:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 213
|
Post by dondubble on May 4, 2024 11:54:15 GMT -5
what the actual hell, guys. you would celebrate a guy circumventing the constitution and the rule of law? it is not CONSERVATIVE to wish for the destruction of our democratic institutions. it is something else. you can't be serious. you HAVE to be trolling. or not reading. which is it? you guys, and probably 30M other Americans, are really scaring me. The rub is he did not circumvent the constitution or the rule of law. I'm sure after these last 4 years there is going to be millions more. I don't want Trump there because I don't think he can get enough of it done but that is what we need a true nationalist president. One that will start to reshape this country the way it was intended to be. USA number 1. No exceptions I can’t find that in the Constitution. Should I check Mein Kampf?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on May 4, 2024 12:09:05 GMT -5
The rub is he did not circumvent the constitution or the rule of law. I'm sure after these last 4 years there is going to be millions more. I don't want Trump there because I don't think he can get enough of it done but that is what we need a true nationalist president. One that will start to reshape this country the way it was intended to be. USA number 1. No exceptions I can’t find that in the Constitution. Should I check Mein Kampf? Mein Kampf was required reading in a grad class I took at Udub. There were about ten of us in class. We read a book a week and then met for three hours to discuss what we had read. One of the students indicated how disgusted she was with how much she agreed with the ideas Hitler expressed and that she was reexamining all her political views. Thinking it might be a good read for some here.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 4, 2024 12:19:29 GMT -5
what the actual hell, guys. you would celebrate a guy circumventing the constitution and the rule of law? it is not CONSERVATIVE to wish for the destruction of our democratic institutions. it is something else. you can't be serious. you HAVE to be trolling. or not reading. which is it? you guys, and probably 30M other Americans, are really scaring me. The rub is he did not circumvent the constitution or the rule of law. I'm sure after these last 4 years there is going to be millions more. I don't want Trump there because I don't think he can get enough of it done but that is what we need a true nationalist president. One that will start to reshape this country the way it was intended to be. USA number 1. No exceptions first of all, that post is not about what he DID. it is about what he will DO. second of all, you already stated that you will leave what he DID up to the courts. i took you at your word. as to the rest of the statement, i am even more horrified than i was with your original post. i think it best we end that part of the discussion for now, while i still appreciate you as a person.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 4, 2024 12:21:25 GMT -5
what the actual hell, guys. you would celebrate a guy circumventing the constitution and the rule of law? it is not CONSERVATIVE to wish for the destruction of our democratic institutions. it is something else. you can't be serious. you HAVE to be trolling. or not reading. which is it? you guys, and probably 30M other Americans, are really scaring me. The rub is he did not circumvent the constitution or the rule of law. I'm sure after these last 4 years there is going to be millions more. I don't want Trump there because I don't think he can get enough of it done but that is what we need a true nationalist president. One that will start to reshape this country the way it was intended to be. USA number 1. No exceptionsWhere did you come up with this idea? The country was founded because the population at the time did not want to be under British rule and taxation. America being exceptional was not even brought up until 1831 by a writer. A writer from France! It originates in the observations and writings of French political scientist and historian Alexis de Tocqueville, most notably in his comparison of the United States with Great Britain and his native France. Tocqueville was the first writer to describe the country as "exceptional" following his travels there in 1831.Really the only thing we have been number one in recently is military strength. Our maternal mortality rate is worse than France, Germany, England and Japan. Given red states insistence on curtailing even medically necessary abortions we will only tank further and infant health will drop as well. www.who.int/health-topics/maternal-health#tab=tab_2America was a better country pre-Trump. Then we didn't have anyone trying to steal an election, put false electors in place and other nonsense.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 4, 2024 12:26:20 GMT -5
disclosure:
i think that nationalism had a place until about 100 years ago, when we developed ICBMs and started impacting the entire world. since then, i have concluded that the only way we survive as a species is to work together GLOBALLY to solve problems.
i am not even a trans-nationalist. i think that alliances between a FEW nations are no better than one. i am a globalist.
does that mean i don't care about immigration? of course not. i have stated my position on the board. it gives SOME businesses unfair advantage over others. those business should be fined to the extent they benefit. that would pay for the "cost of immigration", which is about $50B per year. if there are 11M "illegals", that means that we should fine every business at least $5,000 per violation for hiring them. i am very confident that would take care of the problem.
i don't want a lecture from you about nationalism, and i won't lecture you about globalism. i will however add one last comment:
i find nationalism terrifying. i am sure you feel the same way about globalism. that is not very hopeful, and does not make for good discussion.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 4, 2024 12:31:13 GMT -5
what the actual hell, guys. you would celebrate a guy circumventing the constitution and the rule of law? it is not CONSERVATIVE to wish for the destruction of our democratic institutions. it is something else. you can't be serious. you HAVE to be trolling. or not reading. which is it? you guys, and probably 30M other Americans, are really scaring me. They believe the constitution only protects them. They don’t care if others are impacted negatively. Anyone or anything they are against is fair game, the constitution be damned this reminds me of contract law between averse parties. i have done that before. it usually requires a mediator.
|
|
scgal
Well-Known Member
Joined: Sept 18, 2020 16:56:48 GMT -5
Posts: 1,332
|
Post by scgal on May 4, 2024 12:37:30 GMT -5
The rub is he did not circumvent the constitution or the rule of law. I'm sure after these last 4 years there is going to be millions more. I don't want Trump there because I don't think he can get enough of it done but that is what we need a true nationalist president. One that will start to reshape this country the way it was intended to be. USA number 1. No exceptions first of all, that post is not about what he DID. it is about what he will DO. second of all, you already stated that you will leave what he DID up to the courts. i took you at your word. as to the rest of the statement, i am even more horrified than i was with your original post. i think it best we end that part of the discussion for now, while i still appreciate you as a person. I will leave it up to the courts that's doesn't mean I think he should even be there. All this is a sham just to stop him from becoming president again. I read your post of globalism I find all that kum by ya stuff sickening.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 4, 2024 12:42:29 GMT -5
first of all, that post is not about what he DID. it is about what he will DO. second of all, you already stated that you will leave what he DID up to the courts. i took you at your word. as to the rest of the statement, i am even more horrified than i was with your original post. i think it best we end that part of the discussion for now, while i still appreciate you as a person. I will leave it up to the courts that's doesn't mean I think he should even be there. All this is a sham just to stop him from becoming president again. I read your post of globalism I find all that kum by ya stuff sickening. you have asserted otherwise, previously. even on this thread. you have stated it makes him MORE likely to become president. and that might be true. i might also point out that this would require far more coordination among democrats than they have. they are not as clever or powerful as that, scgal. in fact, they are a bunch of kutzs. globalism is not kum-bay-yah for me. it is a logical conclusion. we have global problems. there are only two ways to solve them: 1) take over everything 2) work with others. agree or disagree?
|
|
dondubble
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2023 16:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 213
|
Post by dondubble on May 4, 2024 12:50:00 GMT -5
first of all, that post is not about what he DID. it is about what he will DO. second of all, you already stated that you will leave what he DID up to the courts. i took you at your word. as to the rest of the statement, i am even more horrified than i was with your original post. i think it best we end that part of the discussion for now, while i still appreciate you as a person. I will leave it up to the courts that's doesn't mean I think he should even be there. All this is a sham just to stop him from becoming president again. I read your post of globalism I find all that kum by ya stuff sickening. Even the felonies he committed under the law HE signed?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 4, 2024 13:11:06 GMT -5
thought experiment for everyone:
if a politician can ONLY be tried by those of his own party, what kind of a result do you think one could expect?
i would not expect a prosecution OR a defense to be impartial to the accused. on the contrary. i would expect them to be extremely biased. that leaves the jury and the judge.
Trump is doing his best to make Merchant seem like a flaming lib, but he pretty clearly isn't. in fact, he is far too conservative for my tastes, which probably means he has it about right.
likewise for the jury. there are at least a couple of Trump fans on it, as given by their media diet(s). and since Trump only needs ONE to stand up for him, i would say that he has the advantage, there, as well.
finally, this is the least solid of the four cases.
so, if there is some vast Democratic conspiracy to repel the electorate, this is probably the worst outcome that they could have had: the SCOTUS is debating a bunch of questions that have about as much legitimacy as the Chinese Government, and the best that the four "Democrat" judges could do to reign in Trump is fine him $9000.
on that basis, i am not sure how you expect me to take that argument seriously.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 4, 2024 14:16:31 GMT -5
first of all, that post is not about what he DID. it is about what he will DO. second of all, you already stated that you will leave what he DID up to the courts. i took you at your word. as to the rest of the statement, i am even more horrified than i was with your original post. i think it best we end that part of the discussion for now, while i still appreciate you as a person. I will leave it up to the courts that's doesn't mean I think he should even be there. All this is a sham just to stop him from becoming president again. I read your post of globalism I find all that kum by ya stuff sickening. I think its a sham Trump has been selling that idea to you and other supporters successfully. If that really was true, shouldn't the election fraud trials already be in progress? According to the timeline below, those trials may not start before the Republican convention. The only trial to stop Trump from being President was the Colorado ballot trial, and its been settled and he remains on the ballot. I think you and Trump need better excuses for his future loss. www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-trump-trials-court-dates-legal-timeline/
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 4, 2024 14:28:14 GMT -5
i am watching a 5 part HBO series on OJ Simpson right now.
i encourage everyone here to watch it. i remember my reaction to that trial- that everyone felt it was a miscarriage of justice. but this is a case that was determined by getting the best possible jury for the defendant. but the inherent bias among OJ's supporters** was a serious problem that was not addressed by the prosecution. we shall hope that in THIS case, that is properly addressed.
fortunately, that will NOT be the case in Trump's trial. as much as i dislike the bias of a couple of the jurors, the best that Trump can hope for is a hung jury. and i would contend, based on the defense so far, that is PRECISELY what they are shooting for.
**the reason i encourage everyone here to watch it is that the biases present in this trial are very similar to MAGA. you will see what i mean if/when you watch it. celebrity does something to the mind of the public. it makes them incapable, in many cases, of finding fault in a person, no matter what their misconduct.
then there is Bill Cosby.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on May 4, 2024 17:07:13 GMT -5
If Trump had paid off Stormy with his own money, that trial couldn't even exist. Wonder why the Trump believers never contemplate that.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,931
|
Post by happyhoix on May 5, 2024 11:00:29 GMT -5
first of all, that post is not about what he DID. it is about what he will DO. second of all, you already stated that you will leave what he DID up to the courts. i took you at your word. as to the rest of the statement, i am even more horrified than i was with your original post. i think it best we end that part of the discussion for now, while i still appreciate you as a person. I will leave it up to the courts that's doesn't mean I think he should even be there. All this is a sham just to stop him from becoming president again. I read your post of globalism I find all that kum by ya stuff sickening. The thing is, SC, if these lawsuits are truly shams, the judges, many of them conservative judges, would be helping Trump get out from under them. Remember the 60 or so law suits that Trump filed after the election, attempting to get the votes thrown out. Many of them were with conservative judges - many of the conservative judges were judges Trump himself had appointed, people who should naturally be biased in his favor. Almost every one of those cases were against him. Look at his current lawsuits - he does have one judge, Judge Cannon in Florida with the MAL documents, who is pro Trump and who is trying to help Trump, but the best she has been able to do is continually delay the trial to the point now that it may not start until after the election. If Trump wins, we can expect he will tell the DOJ, which will be run only by Trump loyalists, to drop that case. If the case is a sham case, Cannon should be able to easily shut it down. The best she can do is delay it. You know that Trump tends to spin things to his advantage - rather than believe him when he claims to be the subject of witch hunts, google that Mar A Lago case in particular, and see what he’s been caught red handed doing, and then compare it to other government workers who got caught carrying classified documents home. Even if you only look at what Fox News says, I’m guessing you’ll find out why that case is not a sham.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,612
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 5, 2024 12:57:29 GMT -5
The familiar irony at the bottom of Trump’s selective prosecution argument
In a new motion filed Thursday, Trump’s lawyers argue that a Chinese immigrant’s case provides the precedent for throwing out the charges in Florida. It’s hard to think of a famous Supreme Court plaintiff with whom former President Donald Trump has less in common than Lee Yick, a Chinese immigrant who was convicted of operating an unlicensed laundry in late-19th-century San Francisco. Yick sued, arguing that San Francisco’s pattern of denying permits to virtually every Chinese applicant while granting them to virtually every white applicant violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in his case, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, still stands today. It says that the application of a race-neutral law, such as San Francisco’s laundry-permitting scheme, can be so obviously discriminatory that it demonstrates an intentional (and actionable) violation of the Constitution. Donald Trump is no Lee Yick. And yet, in a motion filed Thursday in Florida, his lawyers argue that Yick’s case provides a precedent for throwing out the charges in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents prosecution. They say federal prosecutors are engaged in unconstitutional “selective prosecution” of Trump. There are two different, but equally fatal, problems with Trump’s argument. First, for better or worse, the Supreme Court has made selective prosecution claims notoriously difficult to prove. Second, Trump is just about the worst possible person to bring a selective prosecution claim — since so much of his allegedly unlawful conduct in the Mar-a-Lago case is unprecedented. A claim for selective prosecution is, in essence, a claim that the government chose to prosecute a defendant for the exact same conduct for which it chose not to prosecute a different individual. The claim includes the argument that there was no good reason (and, indeed, a nefarious one, like race or political views) for treating the two cases differently. The argument is not that the defendant is innocent; it’s that the government’s misconduct in singling out the defendant ought to be punished — by barring the prosecution of even a guilty defendant. Perhaps because the stakes are so high, the Supreme Court in recent decades has made selective prosecution claims much more difficult to prove. Under a series of cases in the late 1990s, for instance, the justices regularly held that to establish a selective prosecution claim, the burden is on the defendant to identify materially similar cases that the government did not prosecute. And even then the selective prosecution claim would fail if the government had a good reason for not having brought the other case: Say, a suspect in that case cooperated with law enforcement or there were evidentiary issues. Only if the defendant could prove that the government had deliberately and intentionally singled him out from other similarly situated suspects without any good reason would such a claim succeed. This is why, for instance, it is exceedingly difficult to prove racial profiling claims. To establish that a police officer only gives speeding tickets to Black motorists, for example, a plaintiff would have to provide evidence of the officer not pulling over other non-Black motorists engaged in the same behavior. The plaintiff would have to prove a negative. Rest of article here: The familiar irony at the bottom of Trump’s selective prosecution argument
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2024 13:09:27 GMT -5
I will leave it up to the courts that's doesn't mean I think he should even be there. All this is a sham just to stop him from becoming president again. I read your post of globalism I find all that kum by ya stuff sickening. The thing is, SC, if these lawsuits are truly shams, the judges, many of them conservative judges, would be helping Trump get out from under them. Remember the 60 or so law suits that Trump filed after the election, attempting to get the votes thrown out. Many of them were with conservative judges - many of the conservative judges were judges Trump himself had appointed, people who should naturally be biased in his favor. Almost every one of those cases were against him. Look at his current lawsuits - he does have one judge, Judge Cannon in Florida with the MAL documents, who is pro Trump and who is trying to help Trump, but the best she has been able to do is continually delay the trial to the point now that it may not start until after the election. If Trump wins, we can expect he will tell the DOJ, which will be run only by Trump loyalists, to drop that case. If the case is a sham case, Cannon should be able to easily shut it down. The best she can do is delay it. You know that Trump tends to spin things to his advantage - rather than believe him when he claims to be the subject of witch hunts, google that Mar A Lago case in particular, and see what he’s been caught red handed doing, and then compare it to other government workers who got caught carrying classified documents home. Even if you only look at what Fox News says, I’m guessing you’ll find out why that case is not a sham. exactly. the narcissistic universe is one in which failure is impossible. therefore any "sign" of failure must be excused by some sort of conspiracy. as the failure increases, the conspiracy widens to fit it. i posit that the GOP is living in a NPD fantasy land of Donald Trump, which is a really dangerous place to live. Ockham's Razor would be a valuable tool at this time. which is a simpler explanation: 1) that Trump has built his life and fortune on lying and cheating (usually at the outer boundary of the law, but occasionally beyond it), and by NEVER admitting failure (even though his record clearly shows it). had he kept a lower profile, he could have probably carried his reputation (as fake as it was) to his grave. but with the higher scrutiny that all politicians get, his many ILLEGAL indiscretions are coming home to roost in a tidal wave of litigation, much of which has to do with the brazenness of his more recent illegalities. OR 2) that the "deep state" is out to get Trump. the "deep state" seems to include pretty much everything other than MAGA at this point, although at one point it was only clandestine agencies within the federal government. before you answer, i want to again reiterate something that Noam Chomsky said to me in our one and only email exchange. i had inquired with him about the likelihood that the Deep State was responsible for 911. if anyone would invite such a theory, it seems as if Chomsky would be the kind of man that would. but he didn't. he said something like this (paraphrasing): the US government can't seem to keep popping a party balloon a secret. how could they possibly coordinate an attack involving planes, foreign nationals, and buildings without anyone stepping forward and ratting them out? to add to the above, consider the first couple years of Trump, where people WITHIN HIS ADMINISTRATION ratted him out. and what he was doing was not nearly as serious as 911. anyone that believes that this is some sort of coordinated attack against Trump should consider the breadth of it, and how difficult it would be to pull that off without anyone "finking". edit: i forgot to add that option 1 only involves ONE PERSON. it is as simple to "coordinate" as analyzing the motivations and actions of that one person. option 2 involves MILLIONS OF PERSONS. we can't even agree on this board that Trump is one of the 5 worst presidents in US history. is it REALLY easier to believe that millions of people are working against him for the danger he poses to all of us than ONE MAN working in his own self interest?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on May 5, 2024 13:24:22 GMT -5
anyone that believes that this is some sort of coordinated attack against Trump should consider the breadth of it, and how difficult it would be to pull that off without anyone "finking". immediately commit themselves for mental examination and treatment. FTFY
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2024 13:27:38 GMT -5
LOL. yeah. forgive me for cutting a whole yard when a foot would do.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on May 5, 2024 15:37:19 GMT -5
The rub is he did not circumvent the constitution or the rule of law. I'm sure after these last 4 years there is going to be millions more. I don't want Trump there because I don't think he can get enough of it done but that is what we need a true nationalist president. One that will start to reshape this country the way it was intended to be. USA number 1. No exceptions Out of curiosity, what things will have to happen to reshape the country the way it was "intended to be"? What needs to be implemented and what needs to be ended. No brown people, but the black people can stay and we will make them slaves - legal to beat and rape them. As for women - no agency whatsoever. No jobs, no votes, no rights. I’m pretty sure that was the original intention.
|
|
dondubble
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2023 16:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 213
|
Post by dondubble on May 5, 2024 15:47:15 GMT -5
what the actual hell, guys. you would celebrate a guy circumventing the constitution and the rule of law? it is not CONSERVATIVE to wish for the destruction of our democratic institutions. it is something else. you can't be serious. you HAVE to be trolling. or not reading. which is it? you guys, and probably 30M other Americans, are really scaring me. The rub is he did not circumvent the constitution or the rule of law. I'm sure after these last 4 years there is going to be millions more. I don't want Trump there because I don't think he can get enough of it done but that is what we need a true nationalist president. One that will start to reshape this country the way it was intended to be. USA number 1. No exceptions He didn’t circumvent the Constitution because his effort failed. The Rule of Law? We’ll eventually find out, but it doesn’t look good for Trump in that regard.
|
|